Shanker Rastogi and Ors v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No. Dat e Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS

2026:UHC:2030

IA No.1/2026 (Compounding Application) with C528 No.486 of 2026 Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the Applicants.

¶2Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned AGA with Mr. Nikhil Bisht, learned Brief Holder, for the State of Uttarakhand/1.

¶3Mr. Amit Kapri, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2.

¶4In the present Application filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 the Applicants have put a challenge to the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.920 of 2024, "State Vs. Shanker Rastogi and others" under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

¶5There is a compounding application also filed along with present C528 Application as paper no.28, whereby it is prayed that since the parties i.e. Applicant No.1 and the Respondent No.2, do not wish to live together due to temperamental differences, the matter may be compounded and matter may be disposed of accordingly. The Applicants and Respondent No.2 are present in person before this Court, who have been duly identified by their learned counsel, and after interacting with the parties the grounds for allowing the compounding are found to be sufficient. The Applicants and the Respondent No.2 have annexed their signatures and duly endorsed by the learned counsel for the parties. The application is also supported with an affidavit of the parties.

¶6Today, the matter is listed for disposal of the aforesaid compounding application.

¶7As per the compounding application, there is a joint submissions on behalf of the Applicants as well as the Respondent No.2 that the incident happened due to misunderstanding, and now they have reconciled the matter and have come into the terms of the compromise and hence the compounding application may be allowed and the matter may be disposed of accordingly.

¶8This Court is of the considered view that the grounds for compounding are sufficient.

¶9Considering the overall facts and circumstance of the case, and particularly, the fact that the parties have settled their dispute amicably, this Court finds ground sufficient for allowing the compounding application.

¶10Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶11In view of the principle of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2012 (10) SCC 303 as well as in Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 115 of 2012 (Dimpey Gujral vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh) decided on 06.12.2012, criminal proceedings can be quashed by this Court, if this Court is satisfied that matter has been settled between the parties amicably and parties are interested to restore peace and harmony between them.

¶12In view of the above, the compounding application is allowed. The entire proceedings of the Criminal Case No.920 of 2024, "State Vs. Shanker Rastogi and others" under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Sections ¾ of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which is pending before the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, are hereby quashed.

¶13The Criminal Miscellaneous Application, filed under 528 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is disposed of accordingly.

(Ashish Naithani, J.)

23.03.2026 Nitesh/